This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

No, such fears are not "irrational," and of course there is no way of knowing whether or not a man is transgendered simply because he decides to put a blouse on and walk into the ladies locker room.

On the contrary, what's "irrational" is a blanket assumption that a man poses no threat simply because he's wearing women's clothing.

Yes, they are irrational, even if some guy were dressing up as a woman just to gain access to the women's locker rooms or restrooms just to see naked women. A man seeing a naked woman is not equivalent to the woman being in danger. And there is nothing whatsoever to show that women in a locker room or anyone in a locker room is in danger of being raped because of these rules. This is so unbelievably unreasonable.

First, locker rooms almost always have people going in and out of them. No half intelligent rapist would even attempt to attack anyone in a locker room and risk discovery, from either the people entering or those working in the gym.

Second, this is completely sexist. It assumes that women can't sexually assault or just plain assault other women. It also wrongly assumes that guys would be likely to do something like that, dress like a woman just to do this. It could also be said that many men who would do this could just as easily do this without such a policy very easily. It assumes that a man would risk getting caught raping someone but not for something so petty as entering a woman's locker room in disguise. That makes no sense at all. And it completely ignores transgendered men.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Second, this is completely sexist. It assumes that women can't sexually assault or just plain assault other women. It also wrongly assumes that guys would be likely to do something like that, dress like a woman just to do this. It could also be said that many men who would do this could just as easily do this without such a policy very easily. It assumes that a man would risk getting caught raping someone but not for something so petty as entering a woman's locker room in disguise. That makes no sense at all. And it completely ignores transgendered men.

Oh come on. Sexist? In the past year, how many times (if any) did some random woman attack and sexually assault another woman?

Do you often find yourself chiding those who refuse to ride with drunk drivers because it's irrational to believe it's any less safe given that sober people crash cars, too?

I'll tell you what is irrational - throwing probability out the window in favor of mere possibility.

Show the laws of the state of Michigan violated by the rules of this gym.

It would be those laws that pertain to civil rights and public accommodations. Given that such laws are typically vague, any analysis - yours or mine - will likely be meaningless without a knowledge of the relevant case law, something I have no access to.

1.)Oh come on. Sexist? In the past year, how many times (if any) did some random woman attack and sexually assault another woman?
2.)Do you often find yourself chiding those who refuse to ride with drunk drivers because it's irrational to believe it's any less safe given that sober people crash cars, too?
3.) I'll tell you what is irrational - throwing probability out the window in favor of mere possibility.

1.) hmmm using THAT logic i bet you its MORE than some transgender man attacked a woman
2.) wow what a failed strawman that is totally not analogous
3.) what probability, you havent shown any, Is it very probably a transgender man will attack a woman?

thank you for proving your own claims wrong LMAO

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

1.)It would be those laws that pertain to civil rights and public accommodations. Given that such laws are typically vague, any analysis - yours or mine - will likely be meaningless without a knowledge of the relevant case law, something I have no access to.

the civil rights of this woman nor accomadation laws were violated

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

Oh come on. Sexist? In the past year, how many times (if any) did some random woman attack and sexually assault another woman?

Do you often find yourself chiding those who refuse to ride with drunk drivers because it's irrational to believe it's any less safe given that sober people crash cars, too?

I'll tell you what is irrational - throwing probability out the window in favor of mere possibility.

Please provide the last time someone was attacked in a gym locker room, or changing room, or public (as in actually having people coming in and out, or employees in the area, somewhere, available any time its open) restroom. Last I checked, it is even more rare for a rape to occur in a public restroom, changing room, locker room, then for a woman to sexually assault someone.

Oh and statistically, women are assaulted by people they know, not strangers. People they are dating or are acquainted with or even their family members.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

How dare she let other members know of the gym's unstated, unwritten, locker room policy! She had no right to let others in on the secret..that totally ruins the surprise!!

She had no right to harass them about the policy (there were complaints from other members), nor to state the policy as more than just the policy. She didn't just say "they allow people to enter the locker room of the gender they identify as, that is their policy" and leave it at that. She inserted her own view of "that puts us at risk of assault from that man".

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

How dare she let other members know of the gym's unstated, unwritten, locker room policy! She had no right to let others in on the secret..that totally ruins the surprise!!

what facts say the rule was unstated, unwritten, in fact it was stated LMAO also just telling them wasnt the issue. Making others uncomfortable and stating the falsehood that it was dangerous and a safety issue was the issue.

man your posts just keep failing one right after another, can you support any of these clams please?.

maybe you should stick to what actually happening instead of just making stuff up dishonest posts, thanks

Last edited by AGENT J; 03-24-15 at 09:18 PM.

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.